PLC(CS) 2020

2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Ms. SHAMA HASSAN and 35 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Sindh High Court
Decided Date
Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-2271, D-2334, D-2518, D-2584, D-2729, D-3006, D-3392, D-3766, D-6589 and D-7067 of 2018, decided on 20th February, 2020.
Honorable Judges
Nadeem Akhtar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Sindh High Court
Bench Members Nadeem Akhtar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ
Parties Ms. SHAMA HASSAN and 35 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Sindh High Court bench comprising: Nadeem Akhtar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (Ms. SHAMA HASSAN and 35 others Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Khan along with Amir Hanif and Hussain Bux Saryo for Petitioners.
  • Muhammad Nishat Warsi, D.A.G. for Respondent No.1.
  • Sanaullah Noor Ghori along with Malik Ejaz, Law Officer, Pakistan Steel for Respondent No.2 (in all C.Ps.).
  • Muhammad Zahid for Respondent No.3. (in all C.Ps.).

Headnotes / Summary

Contractual employees of public bodies

Regularization of service

Petitioners, who were contractual employees inter alia, sought regularization of service by filing constitutional petition

Contention of respondent/employer was that petitioners would be provided similar treatment as other employees, who had similar grievances and whose grievances had been decided by the Supreme Court

Validity

Objection of petitioners that they would not be given similar treatment as their colleagues upon scrutiny by employers, was not valid as such objection was based on mere presumption and liable to be discarded

High Court directed that matter of petitioners' service be decided in terms of directions of Supreme Court

Constitutional petition was disposed of, accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

ADNAN-UL-KARIM MEMON, J.

Through this common order, we intend to decide the present petitions as the controversy and questions raised, on behalf of the petitioners, are common.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed by Pakistan Steel Mills and presently performing their duties as teaching and non-teaching staff in the Education Department of Pakistan Steel in terms of letters of contracts issued by Hadeed Welfare Trust for the last many years and are seeking regularization of their contractual services on the strength of order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.121-K and 122-K of 2017.

3. The respondents 2 and 3 filed their comments. The respondent No.2 in their comments raised the objections that the petitioners are employees of Hadeed Welfare Trust, while Hadeed Welfare Trust has taken the plea that Office Memorandum issued by Establishment Division for regularization of contract employees does not apply to petitioners.

4. When we explicitly confronted the above decision to the learned counsel for the Pakistan Steel Mills, they simply said that they are ready and willing to C.P. No.D-2271 of 2018 and other connected petitions provide similar treatment to the petitioners as meted out to their colleagues in the aforesaid petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners objected to this proposition to the extent that they will knockout the petitioners on the basis of scrutiny and if they have any reservation against the petitioners they may come forward with cogent evidence before this court and the petitioners cannot be left at the mercy of respondents. This assertion of the petitioners, being based on mere presumption, is untenable thus discarded.

5. Prima facie, the case of petitioners is akin to the case of petitioners in C.Ps Nos.D-5176 of 2013 and D-151 of 2014, which were decided by this Court vide common judgment dated 15.12.2016. The decision of this Court was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petitions Nos.121-K and 122-K of 2017 and the same was maintained vide order dated 21.3.2017. An excerpt of the order dated 21.3.2017 is reproduced as under: "

4. As can be seen from the foregoing, the above decision is not restricted to any scale or grade, and no such restriction can be read therein by any stretch of imagination and is therefore, equally applicable to the employees of all grades and scales including the present respondents, who were thus rightly granted such relief through the impugned judgment. We therefore do not find any lacuna in the impugned judgment justifying our interference in the matter, the petitions are therefore dismissed."

6. We have also taken guidance from another order dated 03.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.Ps. Nos.575-K to 578-K and 590-K to 594-K /2018 whereby respondent-Pakistan Steel did not press the petitions on the ground that teaching staff had already been regularized, accordingly the petitions were dismissed as not pressed.

7. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of in terms of orders dated 21.03.2017 and 03.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid matters, with no order as costs. KMZ/S-46/Sindh Order accordingly.